CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 16, Number 4, 2013

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0328

Blaming the Victim: The Effects of Extraversion and

Information Disclosure on Guilt Attributions in Cyberbullying

Mathias Weber, MA, Marc Ziegele, MA, and Anna Schnauber, MA*

Abstract

Cyberbullying victims’ success in coping with bullying largely depends on schoolmates and other bystanders’
social support. However, factors influencing the degree of social support have as yet not been investigated. In
this article, the concept of victim blaming is applied to cyberbullying incidents. It is assumed that a cyberbul-
lying victim receives less social support when the victim’s behavior is perceived as very overt. It is further
assumed that this effect’s underlying process is the partial attribution of responsibility for the incident to the
victim and not to the bully. The hypotheses are tested with a 2 · 2 online experiment. In this experiment, varying
online self-presentations of a fictitious female cyberbullying victim were presented to 586 Germans aged 16–22.
The victim’s public Facebook profile was manipulated in terms of the victim’s extraversion and the amount of
personal information disclosed. The results support the hypotheses. Participants attributed more responsibility
for the bullying incident to the victim when the victim was presented as extraverted and very open in revealing
personal information. This diminished social support for the victim. The effect was partially mediated by the
victim’s perceived attractiveness. The study implies that concepts from victimization research can enhance our
understanding of cyberbullying incidents. Among other factors, the victim’s specific personal characteristics
deserve more consideration—not only with regard to the incident itself but also regarding subsequent social
dynamics and coping mechanisms.

Introduction perpetrator and victim as a fourth necessary condition.4

Contrary to traditional bullying, cyberbullying does neither

B ullying is commonly defined as repeated hostile or

aggressive acts that intend to ‘‘inflict harm or discomfort
on others.’’1–3 Such acts are likely to cause significant
psychosocial and behavioral consequences for the victims.4–6
For example, many bullying victims experience anxiety and
depression or a long-lasting reduction of self-esteem.7 Fur-
thermore, bullying experiences have been linked to an in-
crease in medicine use (e.g., against sleeplessness) and
suicidal thoughts.6,8,9
In recent years, bullying incidents have increasingly
appeared online. Internationally, the proportion of children
and adolescents who experience some form of online vic-
timization ranges from 9 to 40 percent.1,10 When perpetra-
tors use electronic media to harass their victims, these acts
are labeled as cyberbullying.1,2,5,11–13 Cyberbullying is
usually conceptualized as an extension of traditional bul-
lying (for a critique, see Law et al.12). As such, it involves
repetition of aggressive acts, involvement of psychological
torment, and the perpetrator’s intention.1,11,13 Some authors
include a perceived or actual power asymmetry between
require spatial nor temporal proximity between the persons
involved.4 Additional characteristics of online communica-
tion spaces, such as their relative anonymity or their public
or semi-public nature, may amplify the reach of cyberbul-
lying.14,15
In the case of a cyberbullying incident, social support
strategies (e.g., telling friends or parents about the incident)
have empirically been found to be particularly important
when victims try to evaluate the effects and cope with
them.13,16–18 In particular, support provided by friends and
the general peer group plays a crucial role when cyberbul-
lying occurs.1,19 In contrast, a lack of support can pose an
additional threat to the victim as it may result in social ex-
clusion, which further intensifies the victim’s suffering.
However, little is known about the conditions under which
friends and peers are willing to provide social support. Much
of the research on cyberbullying, even though it is essential
for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, is
rather descriptive and lacks theoretical arguments.5,10,16 Ne-
cessary conditions for social support are that friends and

Department of Communication, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

*Author order has been determined by random.org.

254
BLAMING THE VICTIM 255

peers do not underestimate the impact of cyberbullying and victim discloses online. In terms of quality, this refers to in-
that they do not shift the blame for the cyberbullying incident formation that can be interpreted as more or less extraverted,
in part onto the victim.19 Thus, in this text, the psychological that is outgoing, sociable, etc.35 Based on the results from
approach of victim blaming is used as a theoretical frame- sexual assault cases, hypothesis 1 states:
work for an examination of the circumstances under which
bystanders tend to support a cyberbullying victim. H1: The more a cyberbullying victim appears to be extra-
verted, the more likely bystanders are to attribute responsi-
bility for the victimization to the victim.
Victim Blaming
Based on the literature on self-disclosure and privacy is-
Victim blaming is one prominent form of lack of social
sues, it may be further assumed that the quantity of infor-
support. It describes the attribution of (a share of) responsi-
mation disclosed can be interpreted as provocative and overly
bility for a violent offense to the victim. It may be interpreted
open behavior. A high degree of self-disclosure is associated
in terms of attributional theory as an attribution error.
with several risks; for example, unwanted contact and cyber-
Therefore, the victim’s personality is perceived as the inci-
bullying can result from too much self-disclosure.36–38 Thus,
dent’s cause rather than circumstantial factors.20–22
hypothesis 2 states:
Several proposed theories seek to explain this phenome-
non. Among these, the most prominent are the Just World H2: The more personal information a victim discloses (to
Theory23,24 and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis.25–27 strangers) online, the more likely it is that bystanders will
The former states that individuals hold beliefs about the attribute responsibility for the victimization to the victim.
world being a just place. People usually get what they de-
serve. It seems inappropriate that something unwanted or It has been shown that personality traits cannot be strictly
negative happens to an innocent person.28 ‘‘If others can separated from other aspects of a person’s general appearance.
suffer unjustly, then the individual must admit to the unset- More specifically, someone who is perceived as being extra-
tling prospect that he too could suffer unjustly.’’23 The belief verted is generally perceived as being attractive as well—at
in a just world is central for individuals to cope with their least compared to a physically similar but introverted
lives. If negative things can happen to someone through no counterpart.39 This finding is important for the hypotheses
fault of their own, individuals are not in control of their well- because it has also been shown that attractive victims of sexual
being. Blaming victims for their suffering can help reducing offenses are less likely to be attributed responsibility for the
dissonance and maintaining that view of a just world.23,28 The victimization than less attractive victims.40 Thus, a third hy-
extensive body of research on the Just World Theory in con- pothesis is added with reference to the interrelation of extra-
nection with victim blaming focused on situations where the version, attractiveness, and victim blaming:
respondents were not personally affected by the incident.29
These situations are comparable to the current case of by- H3: The relationship between extraversion and attribution of
responsibility for victimization is partially mediated by the
standers in cyberbullying. The research, however, centered victim’s perceived attractiveness. An extraverted victim is
on physically more severe victimizations, for example, pov- perceived as more attractive. This attractiveness contributes to
erty in developing countries, diseases like AIDS, or rape less attribution of responsibility for victimization.
cases.29
The Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that victim All hypotheses will be tested as part of a structural equa-
blaming is increased for observers who may encounter the tion model (Fig. 1).
same situation in the future. By attributing blame to the victim,
they maintain the illusion that the reasons for the incident are
dispositional. Therefore, they can prevent a similar misfortune
from happening to themselves because they are different from
the victim. Thus, similar to the Just World Theory, defensive
attribution is based on self-protective needs.25
Victim blaming research has mainly focused on rape cases.
The main interest of previous research has been to identify
factors that decrease or increase the probability and intensity
of victim blaming.20,22,30,31 Regarding the victim’s character-
istics, victim blaming is particularly common when the vic-
tim’s behavior is perceived as provocative, for example, in
terms of clothing style, openness, outgoingness, and soci-
ability.22,32,33 These factors are associated with an extraverted
personality.34,35
Based on the importance of peer-group social support, the
findings of victim blaming in rape cases were applied to
cyberbullying. As there is no empirical research on this topic
so far, our hypotheses are based on general behavioral pat-
terns that can indicate an overt behavioral style in an online
environment and that observers might misinterpret as pro-
vocative. Our study focuses on two factors, namely, the
quality and the quantity of information that a cyberbullying FIG. 1. Hypothesized model.
256 WEBER ET AL.

Methods Measures
Sample and procedure Victim blaming. Two types of measures were established
to ascertain the degree of responsibility for the victimization
A 2 · 2 online experiment was conducted, with extraver-
that respondents attributed to the victim. Four items were
sion (high vs. low) and degree of personal information dis-
used to measure respondents’ tendency to directly blame
closed (high vs. low) as independent variables. During
Sophia for the incident. The respondents were asked to in-
December 2011 and January 2012, 1,825 young Germans aged
dicate their agreement on a five-point scale that Sophia ‘‘had
16–22 were invited via e-mail and social network sites to
it coming,’’ ‘‘had provoked the incident,’’ ‘‘has herself to
participate in a survey. The present study fully complied with
blame,’’ or ‘‘could have prevented the incident.’’ The items
German legal standards and ethics guidelines for empirical
were intended to constitute the factor of ‘‘direct victim
social research with adolescents.{ The survey topic was in-
blaming’’ and are based on the Just World Theory.23,24 Like-
troduced as ‘‘conflicts at the school.’’ The following analysis is
wise, two indicators were established to measure victim
based on 586 completed questionnaires. Participation rates
blaming based on the participants’ overall judgment of the
did not differ significantly between treatment conditions.
incident. The first one asked for the incident’s severity (five-
Hence, the percentage of participants who started answering
point scale: 1 ‘‘not severe at all’’ to 5 ‘‘very severe’’). The
the questionnaire but who did not complete the survey after
second one asked to indicate the severity of a just punishment
all was about the same in the four experimental conditions. A
for the person who had sent the e-mails (five-point scale: 1
selective dropout, as indicated by different participation rates
‘‘no punishment at all’’ to 5 ‘‘very hard punishment’’). In-
in different groups, can be ruled out. Of the participants, 65%
versely scaled, these two items were intended to constitute
were women. The average age was 19.8 years. A vast majority
the factor of ‘‘indirect victim blaming.’’ Finally, victim blam-
(93%) visited a Gymnasium (similar to high school) at the
ing was measured directly by asking the respondents who
time of the survey or had visited a Gymnasium before
they blame for the incident. Respondents indicated their an-
graduation.
swer on a five-point scale from 1 ‘‘only Sophia is to blame’’ to
5 ‘‘only the person who sent the e-mails is to blame.’’ This
Scenario and treatment
indicator was mainly used to estimate the validity of the two
Participants were given a scenario describing a fictive aforementioned factors as victim blaming measures. Indeed,
cyberbullying incident as follows: A 17-year-old girl (‘‘Sophia’’) the direct measure could be well explained through both
is part of her school’s yearbook committee. The students reg- factors (R2 = 0.29; direct victim blaming: b = 0.44, p < 0.001;
ularly fight over the design and content of the yearbook. After a indirect victim blaming: b = 0.20, p = 0.004). The factors were
particularly heated debate, Sophia decides to quit the com- successfully established through confirmatory factor analysis
mittee. Following her withdrawal, several e-mails circulated as part of the hypothesized model (cf. Results section).
among Sophia’s classmates. Each e-mail contains offensive
comments and an intimate photograph of Sophia, which a Perception of the victim’s attractiveness. The participants
classmate took secretly in the school bathroom. were asked to rate Sophia’s attractiveness on a five-point scale
After having read the scenario, participants were shown from 1 ‘‘Sophia is attractive’’ to 5 ‘‘Sophia is unattractive.’’
one out of four versions of Sophia’s alleged public Facebook
profile. One version revealed only a little personal informa- Sociodemographics. Respondents were asked to indicate
tion about Sophia (her name, gender, and number of friends) their gender, age, and the school type1 they visited or grad-
as well as a profile picture, showing Sophia’s portrait and a uated from.
club or discotheque in the background (condition: high de-
gree of extraversion/low degree of personal information re- Results
vealed). A second version of the profile included the same
A structural equation model was calculated using AMOS
information as the first one, only the profile picture depicted
19.0. The single model included the confirmatory factor an-
Sophia with books and papers (condition: low degree of
alyses (factors: ‘‘direct victim blaming’’ and ‘‘indirect victim
extraversion/low degree of personal information revealed).
blaming’’), the two independent variables (‘‘personal infor-
The third version was identical to the first one, only that
mation revealed’’ and ‘‘extraversion’’), and the hypothesized
Sophia openly revealed her interest in partying and popular
paths between them (Fig. 2). The model fit the data well:
films and music (condition: high degree of extraversion/high
v2 = 37.637 (29, n = 586), p = 0.131, comparative fit index
degree of personal information disclosed). Likewise, the
(CFI) = 0.99, root-mean-squared error of approximation
fourth version was identical to the second one, only that So-
(RMSEA) = 0.02, standardized root mean of the residual
phia revealed in detail her interest for cultural activities as
(SRMR) = 0.03.41 The independent variables significantly
well as for films and music that are not part of the cultural
contributed to explaining the degree of victim blaming. Six
mainstream, for example, classical music (condition: low
percent of the factor ‘‘direct victim blaming’’ and five percent
degree of extraversion/high degree of personal information
of the factor ‘‘indirect victim blaming’’ were related to So-
disclosed).
phia’s presentation as an extravert or her disclosure of a large
amount of personal information. However, H1 was only
{
partially supported. Extraversion significantly increased re-
As a substitute for an institutional approval (which is not re- spondents’ tendency to perceive the cyberbullying incident as
quired in Germany for studies with participants above the age of 15),
our research design underwent an institutional peer review and was
harmless and to demand only a mild punishment (‘‘indirect
approved regarding soundness of method and compliance with victim blaming’’: b = 0.11, p = 0.047). In contrast, the victim’s
ethical standards. extraversion did not significantly increase the respondents’
BLAMING THE VICTIM
tendency to directly accuse Sophia of being (partially) re-
sponsible for the incident (‘‘direct victim blaming’’). H2 was
supported regarding both measures of victim blaming. Par-
ticipants who were shown a high degree of publicly available
information about Sophia were significantly more likely to
find her (partially) responsible for her own victimization
(‘‘direct victim blaming’’: b = 0.10, p = 0.040; ‘‘indirect victim
blaming’’: b = 0.10, p = 0.054).
Finally, the mediation hypothesis H3 was also supported.
The extraverted Sophia was perceived as significantly more
attractive compared to her introverted counterpart (R2 = 0.05,
b = 0.22, p < 0.001). Perceived attractiveness significantly di-
minished the probability that participants would attribute
responsibility for the bullying incident to Sophia (‘‘direct
victim blaming’’: b = 0.23, p < 0.001; ‘‘indirect victim blaming’’:
b = 0.18, p = 0.001).
Both H1 (extraversion has a direct positive effect on victim
blaming) and H3 (extraversion has an indirect negative effect on
victim blaming) were at least partially confirmed. Thus, extra-
version simultaneously induces two distinct and counteracting
influences on victim blaming. This might imply that, regarding
the overall effect of extraversion, the two influences neutralize
each other. If this is the case, no effect of extraversion on victim
blaming should be detectable once the mediating path through
the victim’s perceived attractiveness is ignored. The results
confirmed this assumption. When the same model was re-
calculated without the mediating path, the model still fits the
data well (v2 = 32.821 (23, p = 0.08); CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.03;
SRMR = 0.03). However, the paths between extraversion and
both measures of victim blaming no longer differ significantly
from zero (‘‘direct victim blaming’’: b = 0.01, p = 0.862; ‘‘indirect
victim blaming’’: b = 0.07, p = 0.198).
Discussion
Victim blaming processes are effective in cyberbullying
incidents. A victim’s characteristics can decrease or increase
257
FIG. 2. Observed model.
Maximum likelihood estima-
tion, X2 = 37.637 (29, n = 586),
p = 0.131, comparative fit
index = 0.99, root-mean-
squared error of
approximation = 0.02,
standardized root mean of
theresidual = 0.03. Completely
standardized estimates
reported. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01;
solid arrows indicate
hypothesized paths that were
confirmed by the observed
model. Broken arrows
indicate hypothesized paths
that have not been confirmed.
the probability and intensity of victim blaming in cyberbul-
lying. Victim blaming in turn influences the degree of social
support that the victim is likely to receive. This study’s results
indicate that the (online) appearance of cyberbullying victims
can increase or diminish the amount of responsibility that
bystanders attribute to them. Both an extraverted self-
presentation and a large amount of publicly disclosed infor-
mation lead to more direct and indirect victim blaming.
However, the effect is partially suppressed by the victim’s
attractiveness. Bystanders perceive extraverted victims as
more attractive, and bystanders give more social support to
attractive victims.
Thus, the basic assumptions of the Just World Theory can
be applied not only to serious victimizations such as rape
cases or accidents, but also to less severe victimizations such
as cyberbullying (at least in a physical sense). Some by-
standers show a tendency to reinterpret the victimization by
shifting some of the blame onto the victim. This behavior may
very well be explained as a means of protecting just world
beliefs. However, the present study also corroborates the
conditional character of victim blaming processes: By-
standers’ tendency to blame the victim is more pronounced
when the victim’s characteristics facilitate the attribution
process. In the specific case of this study, the extraverted
personality and the information disclosure behavior of the
victim serve bystanders as rationalization for victim blaming.
Hence, bystanders infer potentially provocative behavior
from the victim’s general extraversion. For future studies, it
might be helpful to include standard measures of partici-
pants’ general beliefs in a just world. Such a measure could
help applying the assumptions of the Just World Theory to
victim blaming processes in cyberbullying more compre-
hensively.
A first limitation of the present study is that the alleged
victim is unknown to the observers. In actual cyberbullying
incidents, at least most bystanders are acquainted with the
victim. The most important implication for this study is that
258
observers have more cues with which to evaluate the victim’s
personality and behavior (e.g., from personal contact).
A victim’s online self-presentation—on which this study
focused—may be only one out of many cues on which by-
standers judge the victim in terms of victim blaming. Current
research, however, indicates that a person’s self-presentation
on social network sites such as Facebook reflects the profile
owner’s personality quite well.42 Thus, it may be assumed
that offline and online cues are rather similar and lead to
comparable consequences.
A second limitation of the present study is that it cannot
assess the impact of the victim’s gender on victim blaming
processes. Due to gender stereotypes, a female victim might
be perceived as more innocent than a male victim.43 Thus,
bystanders might generally shift a greater amount of blame
on male victims than on female victims. As both males and
females seem to be equally represented among victims of
cyberbullying,1 addressing the gender issue for victim
blaming in cyberbullying is an important task for future
studies.
A third limitation is that the age range of the sample (16–22
years) excludes younger persons. They are, however, a rele-
vant group when studying cyberbullying since these in-
cidents predominantly take place in school environments.
Additionally, the sample is biased toward participants with
higher education{ (93% college-preparatory high school).
Although these two factors do not influence internal validity,
future research should include a broader age range as well as
different educational levels to increase external validity.
A fourth limitation is that the results may be afflicted with
case category confounding due to the study’s design. Re-
plicating the results with other cases is necessary to ensure
external validity. Finally, a fifth limitation is that the mea-
sured effects may be short-term priming effects. Their
strength and stability under realistic circumstances must be
validated by non-experimental research on actual cyber-
bullying incidents.
Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the
understanding of factors that decrease or increase the degree
of attribution of responsibility in cyberbullying incidents. The
results provide a starting point for developing better inter-
vention strategies at schools as well as enabling adolescents to
adapt their (online) behavior accordingly in order to protect
themselves from this additional threat. Adolescents in general
and victims of cyberbullying in particular should carefully
ponder which information they disclose online. Certainly,
other factors are likely to play a significant role in the victim
blaming process. Nonetheless, since social network sites are
used to get an impression of other people, reckless privacy
behavior and potentially provocative self-presentations can
worsen cyberbullying consequences.
Further research in this field should include additional
variables potentially correlated with victim blaming (e.g.,
other victim characteristics and characteristics of the bully
and bystanders). The present study should encourage future
studies to adapt concepts from other research fields to cyber-
{ 18. Riebel J, Jäger RS, Fischer UC. Cyberbullying in Germany—
In Germany there are different types of high schools: Gymnasium
(comparable to college-preparatory high schools); Gesamtschule
(comparable to high schools); Hauptschule/Realschule (comparable
to middle schools); Berufsschule (comparable to vocational schools).
WEBER ET AL.
bullying. An interdisciplinary approach may contribute to de-
veloping cyberbullying as a field of study transcending mere
descriptive and atheoretical approaches.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Tokunaga RS. Following you home from school: a critical
review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimi-
zation. Computers in Human Behavior 2010; 26:277–287.
2. Willard N. (2007) Educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyber-
threats. http://csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf
(accessed Sept. 3, 2012).
3. Smith PK, Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, et al. (eds). (1999) The
nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective. London:
Routledge.
4. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Offline consequences of online vic-
timization: school violence and delinquency. Journal of
School Violence 2007; 6:89–112.
5. Patchin J, Hinduja S. Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: a
preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Ju-
venile Justice 2006; 4:148–169.
6. Volk A, Craig W, Boyce W, et al. Adolescent risk correlates of
bullying and different types of victimization. International
Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 2006; 18:575–586.
7. Rigby K. Effects of peer victimization in schools and per-
ceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of
Adolescence 2000; 23:57–68.
8. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide.
Archives of Suicide Research 2010; 14:206–221.
9. Wang J, Iannotti RJ, Luk JW, et al. Co-occurrence of vic-
timization from five subtypes of bullying: physical, verbal,
social exclusion, spreading rumors, and cyber. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology 2010; 35:1103–1112.
10. Mishna F, Cook C, Gadalla T, et al. Cyberbullying behaviors
among middle and high school students. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry 2010; 80:362–374.
11. Dehue F, Bolman C, Völlink T. Cyberbullying: youngsters’
experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology and
Behavior 2008; 11:217–223.
12. Law DM, Shapka JD, Hymel S, et al. The changing face of
bullying: an empirical comparison between traditional and
internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human
Behavior 2012; 28:226–232.
13. Li Q. New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying in
schools. Computers in Human Behavior 2007; 23:1777–1791.
14. Goodwin B, Fawzi N. (2012) Cyberbullying-related behav-
iour and third-person effect. In Walrave M, Heirman W,
Mels S, et al., eds. eYouth. Balancing between opportunities and
risks. Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 163–180.
15. Li Q. Cyberbullying in high schools: a study of students’
behaviors and beliefs about this new phenomenon. Journal
of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 2010; 19:372–392.
16. Aricak T, Siyahhan S, Uzunhasanoglu A, et al. Cyberbully-
ing among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology and
Behavior 2008; 11:253–261.
17. Juvonen J, Gross EF. Extending the school grounds?—
bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health
2008; 78:496–505.
an exploration of prevalence, overlapping with real life
bullying and coping strategies. Psychology Science Quar-
terly 2009; 51:298–314.
BLAMING THE VICTIM
19. Slonje R, Smith PK. Cyberbullying: another main type of bul-
lying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2008; 49:147–154.
20. Grubb AR, Harrower J. Understanding attribution of blame
in cases of rape: an analysis of participant gender, type of
rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual
Aggression 2009; 15:63–81.
21. Johnson LM, Mullick R, Mulford CL. General versus specific
victim blaming. The Journal of Social Psychology 2002;
142:249–263.
22. Whatley MA. Victim characteristics influencing attributions
of responsibility to rape victims: a meta-analysis. Aggression
and Violent Behavior 1996; 1:81–95.
23. Lerner MJ, Miller DT. Just world research and the attribution
process: looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin
1978; 85:1030–1051.
24. van den Bos K, Maas M. On the psychology of the belief in a
just world: exploring experiential and rationalistic paths to
victim blaming. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
2009; 35:1567–1578.
25. Burger JM. Motivational biases in the attribution of responsi-
bility for an accident: a meta-analysis of the defensive-
attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin 1981; 90:496–512.
26. Shaver KG. Defensive attribution: effects of severity and rel-
evance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 1970; 14:101–113.
27. Walster E. Assignment of responsibility for an accident.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1966; 3:73–79.
28. Lerner M. (1980) The belief in a just world. A fundamental de-
lusion. New York: Plenum Press.
29. Furnham A. Belief in a just world: research progress over the
past decade. Personality and Individual Differences 2003;
34:795–817.
30. McCaul KD, Veltum LG, Boyechko V, et al. Understanding
attributions of victim blame for rape: sex, violence, and fore-
seeability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1990; 20:1–26.
31. Sleath E, Bull R. Comparing rape victim and perpetrator
blaming in a police officer sample: differences between
police officers with and without special training. Criminal
Justice and Behavior 2012; 39:646–665.
32. Kury H. (2003) Wie werden Opfer von Straftaten gesehen?
Zur Stigmatisierung von Verbrechensopfern [The perception
of crime victims. Stigmatization of crime victims]. In Lam-
nek S, Boatcă M, eds. Geschlecht—Gewalt—Gesellschaft.
Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 418–443.
33. Scroggs JR. Penalties for rape as a function of victim pro-
vocativeness, damage, and resistance. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 1976; 6:360–368.
259
34. Costa PT, McCrea RR. Four ways five factors are basic.
Personality and Individual Differences 1992; 13:653–665.
35. John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ. (2008) Paradigm shift to the
integrative big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement,
and conceptual issues. In John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA,
eds. Handbook of personality. Theory and research. New York:
Guilford Press, pp. 114–158.
36. Christofides E, Muise A, Desmarais S. Risky disclosures on
facebook: the effect of having a bad experience on online
behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research 2012; 27:714–731.
37. Debatin B, Lovejoy JP, Horn AK, et al. Facebook and online
privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2009; 15:83–
108.
38. Youn S. Teenagers’ perceptions of online privacy and coping
behaviors: a risk–benefit appraisal approach. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media 2005; 49:86–110.
39. Meier BP, Robinson MD, Carter MS, et al. Are sociable
people more beautiful? A zero-acquaintance analysis of
agreeableness, extraversion, and attractiveness. Journal of
Research in Personality 2010; 44:293–296.
40. Thornton B, Ryck RM. The influence of a rape victim’s
physical attractiveness on observers’ attributions of respon-
sibility. Human Relations 1983; 6:549–561.
41. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alter-
natives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal 1999; 6:1–55.
42. Back MD, Stopfer JM, Vazire S, et al. Facebook profiles re-
flect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological
Science 2010; 21:372–374.
43. Muller R, Caldwell RA, Hunter JE. Child provocativeness
and gender as factors contributing to the blaming of victims
of physical child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect 1993;
17:249–260.
Address correspondence to:
Mathias Weber
Department of Communication
University of Mainz
Colonel-Kleinmann-Weg 2
Mainz 55099
Germany
E-mail: mathias.weber@uni-mainz.de